pastitche

Protecting her nepotistic family empire financial and power interests is bravery? Well, perhaps so, but not in the PUBLIC service.

Again, she is no feminist and has said as much. See the speech at Davos.

This thread is not about nepotism, finance or power; it is about an individual who claimed that the PM's security guard assaulted him.

Whether Yingluck fits your definition of a feminist or not is completely irrelevant and no more than an attempt to take the discussion in a direction that you and your copains de la guerre would prefer

...

"I am a woman, and I insist I did not do anything wrong."

...

More proof she's an anti-feminist. Playing the lady card. Pathetic really.

An interesting observation from you of all people, being such a defender of choice in personal sexual behaviour.

Do you really believe that her words were as quoted/translated and contextually exactly as claimed? I wonder what card would you play in similar circumstances?

There is nothing in this that suggests Yingluck met anyone or spent hours in a hotel bedroom with a man other than the statement of a man who is apparently implacably opposed to her brother and whose bodyguards could not protect him from an assault whilst he was having a two-hour coffee break in a hotel where by the merest chance the PM happened to arrive .... after he was ensconced there.

Come on it's a heap of shit. If he'd been assaulted, he would have lodged a complaint

The truth in Thailand: think haystacks and a needle.

It isn't going to be easy then sifting through the tittle tattle of contracdictions and lies found here. But the arrogance of the Thais in power betrays them as they are dismissive to a counter claim. An example is when they simply refute an allegation b y denying it were so.

There is no factual explanation as to why it could not be so. What there is remains a counter claim basically because I say so - behind it. PATHETIC!

If that is all that can be expected then the weight of belief has to be lain at the victim's door. Quite clearly he is a marked man being a verbal opponent of the Thaksin clan.

Being attacked by security guards upon being recognised is a normal knee jerk reaction from these out of control, hip shooting, single cell amoeba.

I believe he was attacked. I do not necessarily think it was upon instruction but rather that the security detail perceived an opponent and an opportunity.

The rest is domino effect except that a powerful businessman had hsi own hired thugs at hand to repel the attack.

It's Thailand and turds float right to the top as we see in Thaksin Two: the afterbirth.

This incident will, of course, go nowhere. It's been aired and those in power, as always in Thailand where power is abused rather than purposefully used, will do exactly what they want unchecked.

The people continue their apathetic voting and so they deserve what they get. As we do. In a fair democracy we enjoy personal liberty, freedom of thought and expression and safety.

In Thailand, you take your chances despite being in a long queue awaiting when it will happen to you.

Next.

Maybe you should have a lie-down. This seems little more than a storm in a tea cup if even that serious. The protagonist in this story has said that he by chance witnessed the PM meeting a so far unidentified man and that she spent two hours with that man whilst the protagonist drank coffee. He alleges that he was assaulted by one security guard (not plural and not a security detail). There was no evidence in the pictures I saw that he had been assaulted by a professional - it looked like he had suffered a speck of dust, and in the end he refuses to make a police complaint.....

Given his history, it would seem that he is trying to stir an empty pot as are you. I frequently admire your contributions but this time I think that have allowed artistry to surpass sense

Nothing is stronger than the truth. All Yingluck has to do is state the reason she went to the hotel and who she met with. If it was innocent there is no reason for her not to do so. This would put an end to the entire "why was she there" episode. I wonder why she has not already done this? On the other side of the coin if it was not so innocent then I can understand her silence on the matter.

This is nothing more than the usual sleaze-bucket media in the West use to suggest that various celebs have misbehaved. Why should she have to explain her reason for being in that hotel; of course, if she doesn't, you and other likeminded gossip addicts and fans of the filthy discredited News International stable can suggest that there was a surreptitious and immoral occurrence.

Pitbulls are morons (I just couldn't resist) On a more serious note my sympathies go out to this persons family and friends. What a horrific way to die? I have owned these types of dogs as well as others. If one raises a dog from a pup and if that dog has negative destructive or dangerous behavior one just needs to look at the owners for the way their dogs behave. No matter what breed of dog the responsibility of the dogs behavior is connected in some way to the owners and environment.

That is absolutely true. The unfortunate problem we face is that it's a lot easier to kill, beat or injure a dog than it is the owner - and when you're faced with constant harrassment and attacks by dogs your options are limited here. If this were urban Europe or North America you could use an institutional authority of course (in rural America, we have to fend for ourselves a bit), but here in Thailand there's really no option other than either A) putting an end to the threat or B] changing your lifestyle to accommodate someone's unruly mongrel. I like animals as much as the next person, but I don't like them more than I like my well-being and my peace of mind, so if it comes to me or the dog, the dog gets flowers.

It isn't that easy to kill beat or injure a dog that has been bred as a killer - a full-grown dobermann can knock you down easily, German Shepherds are routinely used by police forces because of their strong jaws and ability to hold a person trying to run away. Dogs are not primates and do not behave as if they were nor do they understand primate body language. The danger with dogs is because of the types of dogs that we have produced, those that are capable of inflicting damage on humans, our earliest dogs were hunting partners - they were not dogs who picked up grouse shot by the aristocracy, they were partners in the killing; subsequently they were used in battle as killing machines. So what is the point of maintaining these traits in dogs that nowadays have no need of them?

The nastiest dogs I have met have been small terriers but they are not a threat to anyone except perhaps a human infant; but I believe that in our fixation with the dog as a companion we have forgotten its true genetic history.

Thailand is no different from Europe (except by a few of decades) in that dogs were routinely left outside at night and naturally formed "packs" - not the natural packs that would exist in the wild but still innate behaviour

I don't know where you get your incorrect information from.

But my information is certified by Thai government, from Thai school.

All Thai student must be able to recite what I have said. So it must be a fact. The true fact.

Reading this post is indicating to me this poster isn't really an over the top Thai nationalist, but rather posting satire or taking the piss. Well done! But I think you're busted now so you can stop the act.

But it's been obvious since his original posts that he is a "windup merchant" - and why not on such a pompous self-opinionated and need I say it - racist forum

I am from New Mexico and every year someone is badly mauled usually several every year. The kids always take a beating from these dogs and yes it is usually one in the house or the neighbors dog, dogs that get out. But having said that the majority of dog bites come from other breeds typically someone putting their face into the dogs face.

Yes I agree that most attacks, particularly on kids are not by the selectively bred killers; they are a small, if deadly minority of dogs and inappropriate behaviour by a small human who is not recognised by the dog as a higher member of its "pack" can lead to bites but not normally to being savaged to death.

Some of the huge number of breeds of dog are not suitable to live in a normal human environment because that is not their purpose; pitbulls are bred to kill and if a human is not recognised as a pack superior he can be in danger

In the other English speaking newspaper it was reported that Yingluck came to the Four Seasons Hotel, went up to a room and must have seen Akeyuth on her way up. She came donw again 2 hours later and left. Minutes after the attack occured.

Just wonder what happened in the room upstairs and if the two incidents are connected.

She must have seen.....do you check hotel lobbies on your way up to a room, dominique?

You say shadiness or possible illegality - so the US can decide on the appropriateness of a Thai appointee on the basis of unproven suspicion? Sorry that doesn't work.

When you can assure me that the White House has never had advisors whose pasts were questionable I will accede that you might have a point.

Thailand is a sovereign country; there are no more empires

Until the full facts are detailed, all we have is an uncorroborated allegation.

If the chap feels he was assaulted, he should make a complaint or else understand the perception that he is trying to get some free publicity.

There is a chance he may have gotten to close and presented a threat to someone. In today's climate one never knows if the person getting too close is a wacko.

Your last sentence is of your own manufacture, and your the poster who frequently insists that TV members should provide evidence / data / links, whatever to back up their comments. More double standards from the paymasters worshipers.

Rubbish. It is the sad reality of being public figure. You want facts and figures? Ronald Reagan was shot at by an insane man. Many people were left with serious injuries. Congresswoman Giffords recently recovered from a similar event. she was at a harmless meet and greet. In Sri Lanka assailants have appeared out of nowhere. to attack the PM. In Pakistan assailants have gone kaboom. In the EU celebrities have been attacked. It is a regular occurrence for minor US movie stars to have stalkers. Poor little Justin Bieber has one guy thats stalking him now. Remember Selena the latina singer that was killed by a an "admirer"? How is it a double standard to acknowledge that there are a lot of wackos in circulation and one has to exercise appropriate caution. Get within the bubble of the UK PM and you're going down. Get within the bubble of a US President or Russian PM and you may end up dead. It is common sense to give VIPs like a PM space. One doesn't know if in this case the man got into the security zone, Once more facts come out, we'll be able to see.

BTW, former Abhisit's security detail was working overtime during the Bangkok troubles. Many people were shoved or otherwise roughly handled when his security detail felt they got too close. I don't see anyone making a fuss over that. The response was most likely justified. Here's a tip: Don't get in the face of a Thai PM as you will get hurt. OK?

Don't worry about it GK; like so many of his persuasion he responds to the name and not the content

Now that calgaryll has joined the forum with his completely "redshirt=UDD=PTP=Thaksin" committed attitude it has been amusing and entertaining once again to read TVF. Gradually the foot soldiers of the oppositon alliance have fallen by the wayside and it is developing into a war with the lone champion challenging the forces of the anti-Thaksin heavy cavalry.

I find it most interesting that there are fewer attempts to target previous "Thaksin apologists" now that there is a real identified enemy to assail. Some of you might find redundancy uncomfortable.

Calgaryll, you are on a hiding to nothing but I admire your spirit and determination in face of massive odds - not that I agree with all of your views

I do agree that in general pit-bulls were bread as fighting dogs years ago and are dangerous in the wrong hands (one who lets them run free outside of their property) however I still believe that it can be bread OUT of them with the proper owners and responsibilities.

Guns are safe when kept in a locked environment as are pit-bulls.

I'm not defending pitbulls, just animals in general. They all have a right to live.

In this case the owner failed to keep his guns locked up there for he is liable.

Pitbulls have been bred for aggression and savagery and to fight on in spite of pain; their purpose is for the "sport" of dogfighting. Having 4 of these animals seems to me to indicate that they were not family pets.

They are a result of the human fixation with genetic manipulation of other species; this may be very well in species like sheep, horses, cattle etc where the primary aim has been to domesticate but these are unrecognisable descendants of the wolf, with few of the virtues that normal canines have.

I do not believe that all pitbulls should be euthanised because some are child-friendly pets but all should be neutered so the breed dies out. The same could also be said about other dog breeds who were bred to attack humans and have the physique and power to be a lethal threat to a full-grown man.

And before the pc brigade get on my case with the "there are no bad dogs only bad owners" nonsense, we can rid ourselves of dangerous dogs but not stupid people.

Incidentally I have a very affectionate, friendly and innocuous dog who lives in complete harmony with his companion cats

Russian rudeness in legendary and exemplary, and that perception has enormous effect on people dealing with Russians, in 1941, French Prisoner of War in Poland rioted and large number were shot by German guards, they refused to eat on the same table with Russians, which were mainly high ranking officers, the French complained that is like eating with pigs, the destruction of upper classes during revolution left the country with only peasants, the etiquette and conventional code of conducts, table manners etc went extinct, if any one has had a chance coming across Russian communities that had left Russian during Revolution, in Canada , France etc will find the difference, recently the Russian ministry of education has decided to teach etiquette in schools, as well in Russian itself the Government is referred to as KLEPTOCRACY , collapses of this sort are common occurrence. Peter the Great, was well know for stealing anything that wasn’t bolted to the floor while staying in Europe (Holland) , On the other side Thai hoteliers are not know for generosity, or charity, once they have lousy customer like Russians, this type of reaction is not unusual. Unless the Thai tourist authority and police implement same policy as for Angolans, and designate specific hotels and condition for them, this type of disaster will occur incessantly.

Well I'll have to go check my history but I seem to remember that the French Revolution took place a century or more before Russia's and that all those tumbrils took the aristocracy (including the king) to meet Madame La Guillotine.

Is your point that in some way European table manners are a sign of breeding? Or are you suggesting that societies with different dining customs are essentially inferior to the European-American one? They, in themselves vary too - Americans frequently eat only with their fork and that in the wrong hand, Italians dip bread in their soups and sauces.....

Since the Russian revolution was early last century, when and where did you meet these groups of refugees with personal memories of pre-revolution times?

A purely personal story; as a student I had a flatmate who was African. He used to pare his fingernails very short with a razor blade and when I asked him why he explained that at home he ate with his hands so it was for hygiene. There is no right or wrong etiquette; if you are European your mediaeval ancestors (assuming that they were privileged enough not to live as peasants in daub and wattle huts) did not shrink from eating in a way which would make someone as sensitive as you appalled.

I suggest that you look at the etymology of "trencherman" which has evolved to mean someone with a healthy appetite

Amsterdam being a paid spinmaster has nothing to do with anybody's entrenched positions. It's just a fact of life.

Yeah, pointing it out gets repetitive after a while.

No one can show any evidence in support of his assertion, the thread is dead, as in a "dead horse". People only talk about some off-topic generalities and that's where entrenched positions rise and shine.

I think that makes my point as well as I tried to; this like most of these threads leads to a stalemate where the most voluble believe that they have won a debate whereas it is generally just little more than those with a viewpoint different to the majority becomng silent because of their opponents' numbers and vocifernousness.

Try to look at the number of posts which have little to do with the OP and tell me (a complete neutral)I am wrong.

Ms Yingluck said she believed that Mr Jatuporn raised the issue as a warning. She noted that everyone has the right to express opinion, but that such expression should not go beyond the legal limit.

A fairly meaningless statement. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader Jatuporn didn't express an opinion, but referred to information allegedly provided to him by a U.S. Intelligence Agency. Well, k. Jatuporn is lucky, in some countries he's be incarcerated and tried for treason by now on either "revealing military secrets" or "publishing foreign gossip"

And where in the first world is it an offence to "publish foreign gossip"

Ms Yingluck said she believed that Mr Jatuporn raised the issue as a warning. She noted that everyone has the right to express opinion, but that such expression should not go beyond the legal limit.

A fairly meaningless statement. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader Jatuporn didn't express an opinion, but referred to information allegedly provided to him by a U.S. Intelligence Agency. Well, k. Jatuporn is lucky, in some countries he's be incarcerated and tried for treason by now on either "revealing military secrets" or "publishing foreign gossip"

Really? Which countries have a ruling about "publishing foreign gossip"? I am sure that your home country does not

[...]

I'm neither pro nor anti TS, so I do consider what he says about the army.

Everybody with half a brain knows what he says is correct.

The army do run things here, they're like a separate institution. [...]

You are the ideal recipient for Mr Amsterdam's little essays.

It doesn't bother you, that this self acclaimed "human rights lawyer" is Thaksins paid propaganda minister.

It doesn't bother you that his statements are therefore as credible as a fast food commercial.

It doesn't bother you that Mr Amsterdam's essays are nothing more than a few fitting allegations with a dramatic conclusion, while he carefully avoids all facts that would prove his point of view to be nothing more than finest cattle manure.

"Everybody with half a brain knows what he says is correct." I agree with you on that, however everybody with one complete brain - and who makes prudent use of it - knows that it isn't.

And to elaborate further on the "half a brain", it is pretty obvious, as the quality of Mr. Amsterdam's essays and blogs clearly shows, that he, too, is only using half a brain to write them, despite being paid full-time by Khun Thaksin.

edit: typo

Do other posters get as bored as I do with the idiotic comments above that add nothing to the debate and merely incite further emotional, irrational responses from those in totally entrenched positions?

I didn't need this confirmation, I already gathered as much. Still trying to ignore some posts

Now you know for sure Rubl.

If you ignore any Posts, for heaven's sake ignore CalgaryII

It will be much better for your Political Comfort Zone.

It is very unsettling to have one's conclusions challenged.

The problem is though, the likes of Robert Amsterdam and his fanboy's simply re-inforce my conclusions.

Calgary is a fake red, he is planted here by the yellow shirts to make us believe the reds fit the stereotypes of the amart propoganda machine.

Personally I think he comes from a third world banana republic and is having a tough time adjusting to freedom.

He needs the yoke of government so he is trying to bring Thaksin back to tell him what to do and not do.

It is pretty obvious that if it is not red shirt propaganda he ignores it.

By his own admission he comes from a country where he was a Labour (check the spelling - means UK or Australia) negotiator; you on the other hand sound like you are a Canadian immigrant from somewhere else .... care to tell us?

The redshirts are now a part of the government and have to behave.

Agree with most of what you posted geriatrickid, but would like to add a comment to above.

One must keep in mind what spawned the Red Shirt Movement.....namely the Coup.

It took 'em a while to organize, but organize they did.

To then characterise their anti-coup activity as misbehavior is not accurate.

If their anti-coup stuff was misbehavior, what was the coup.

On a scale of misbehavior, the coup perpetrators so massively exceed the Red Shirt feeble effort to protest a theft of their elected Govt, it wouldn't even be close.

Every one knew, and especially the Red Shirts, that the last election represented electoral reality in Thailand, and to therefore have an electoral minority governing was appalling.

Protesting coups is not misbehavior. It is an exemplary form of standing up to wrongs. Then to have the military rampage through their efforts to protest these wrongs, added insult to injury.

There are those who seek to characterize the feeble efforts to withstand the military assault as being some sort of gross anti-social behavior, when in fact it was opposing military rule.

Considering the Oppositions efforts to again use judicial cover to steal another elected Govt. as some of yesterday's headlines featured, will have entirely different outcomes.

Having Red Shirt affiliates in Government is a very natural thing, totally in line with what those of different affiliation were included in the unelected coup-military Government. I am not a Dem. Party lover, but after they were artificially hoisted into place, I didn't particularly object to the Kasit thing. When there is a major two-way political divide, whichever side is elected has earned the right to appoint whomever they want from their side.

But bottom line, the days of freeby coups are over, regardless what cover and excuses are used - judicial, military or whatever.

If the Opposition thinks they can pull the judicial trick on an elected Government again, they'd better think again.

"Every one knew, and especially the Red Shirts, that the last election represented electoral reality in Thailand, and to therefore have an electoral minority governing was appalling."

Yes the current 'red shirt' "electoral minority" is governing and it is appalling.

The 'red shirts' got a minority of the voting Thais and if you include those eligible to vote, they are even more of a minority.

So yes, the Thais should be appalled at this "electoral minority" government.

Really this subject of a minority vote in a multi-party situation has been done to death - just accept that in a parliamentary election (as opposed to the US presidential election) there are more than 2 candidates in every seat so there can be a winner with less than 50% of votes cast. Get back to reality - this electoral system has been working for a hundred years with universal suffrage in the UK and has rarely produced a need for coalition and has never produced a need for extra-parliamentary intervention

<snip>

You have to be off to work at 5:15pm? Obviously not a teacher then - so why the interest?

There are many countries where the accused are not held in prison for the lengthy terms that these prisoners have without trial; no-one can claim that there is justice in this situation and claim that they agree that there is "innocence until proven guilty" Detention without trial may appear to be fair to some posters but I think that most of us can see the dangerous path that leads to.

Thailand has a method to obviate that by making the imposition of unaffordable bail possible - why is that so wrong if the judicial system has been so slow.

Surely the real problem is why have these cases taken so long to get to court; if they had been to trial we would not have had these nonsensical arguments about bail. and how it is applied in different judiciaries with pedantic nitpicking about what is or is not comparable with Thailand

BTW, I just came across the information that Scotland does not require any money or property to secure bail at all - a get out of jail free card, if you will. Those crazy Scots, eh?

You're getting a bit closer.

Now just come across information where a country's government acts as bail bondsman for criminals a country's government prosecutors have charged.

.

You have made such a fuss of this can I now ask you how many countries have bail bondsmen?

I received this from our US based supplier:

Please be advised that we will no longer be able to process any orders.

Please see the notification we have received and this basically has tied our hands regarding any shipments made. We truly regret informing you of our action, however we do hope that you understand; and once Ms. Nalinee Taveesin is no longer involved with the government or removed from the SDN list, we can resume working together.

So you're suggesting that an American company can't do business with Thailand specifically because of Nalinee? I find that very hard to believe.

Here's the 2003 Executive Order by the president, focusing only on Zimbabwe nationals. As anyone can recognize in the language and in the laws, this is a serious matter. Note that Grace Mugabe appears as number 45 on this original Executive Order regarding Zimbabwe.

Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary

March 7, 2003

Executive Order: Blocking Property Of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes Or Institutions In Zimbabwe

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.1601 et seq.), and Section 301 of Title 3, United States Code, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, have determined that the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions, contributing to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe, to politically motivated violence and intimidation in that country, and to political and economic instability in the southern African region, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

I hereby order:

Section1. Except to the extent provided in Section 203 (of IEEPA (50 U.S.C.1702), and in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, including their overseas branches, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

(a) the persons listed in the Annex to this order; and any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly for or on behalf of, any of the persons listed in the Annex to this order.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction or dealing by a United States person or within the United States in property or interests in property blocked pursuant to this order is prohibited, including but not limited to the making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of any person listed in the Annex to this order or who is the subject of a determination under subsection 1 of this order.

Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Any conspiracy formed to violate the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:

(a) The term "person" means an individual or entity;

The term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

The term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation withthe Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 5. This order is not intended to create, nor does it create, any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, officers, employees, or any other person.

Sec. 6. (a) This order is effective at 12:01 Eastern Standard Time on March 7, 2003; and

This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

March 6, 2003.

ANNEX

1. Robert Gabriel MUGABE [President of Zimbabwe, born 21 Feb. 1924]

2. Flora BUKA [Minister of State for Land Reform, born 25 Feb. 1968]

3. George CHARAMBA [Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Information, born 4 Apr. 1963]

4. Fortune CHARUMBIRA [Deputy Minister for Local Government, Public Works, and National Housing, born 10 June 1962]

5. Aeneas CHIGWEDERE [Minister of Education, Sports and Culture, born 25 Nov. 1939]

6. Augustine CHIHURI [Police Commissioner, born 10 Mar. 1953]

7. Enos CHIKOWORE [Politburo Secretary for Land and Resettlement, born 17 July 1942]

8. Patrick CHINAMASA [Minister of Justice, born 25 Jan. 1947]

9. Edward CHINDORI-CHININGA [Minister of Mines, born 14 Mar. 1955]

10. Constantine CHIWENGA [Lt. Gen., Commander of the Army, born 25 Aug. 1956]

11. Willard CHIWEWE [senior Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, born 19 Mar. 1949]

12. Ignatius CHOMBO [Minister of Local Government, born 1 Aug. 1952]

13. Dumiso DABENGWA [Politburo Senior Committee Member, born 6 Dec. 1939]

14. Nicholas GOCHE [Minister of State for National Security, born 1 Aug. 1946]

15. Rugare GUMBO [Deputy Minister for Home Affairs, born 8 Mar. 1940]

16. Richard HOVE [Politburo Secretary for Economic Affairs, born 23 Sept. 1939]

17. David KARIMANZIRA [Politburo Secretary for Finance, born 25 May 1947]

18. Saviour KASUKUWERE [Deputy-Secretary for Youth Affairs, born 23 Oct. 1970]

19. Christopher KURUNERI [Deputy Minister, Finance and Economic Development, born 4 Apr. 1949]

20. Thenjiwe LESABE [Politburo Secretary for Women's Affairs, born 5 Jan. 1933]

21. Jaison MACHAYA [Deputy Minister for Mines and Mining Development, born 13 June 1952]

22. Joseph MADE [Minister of Agriculture, born 21 Nov. 1954]

23. Edna MADZONGWE [Deputy-Secretary for Production and Labor, born 11 July 1943]

24. Shuvai MAHOFA [Deputy Minister for Youth Development, Gender and Employment Creation, born 4 Apr. 1941]

25. Joshua MALINGA [Deputy-Secretary for Disabled and Disadvantaged, born 28 Apr. 1944]

26. Paul MANGWANA [Minister of State for State Enterprises and Parastatals, born 10 Aug. 1961]

27. Witness MANGWENDE [Minister of Transport and Communications, born 15 Aug. 1946]

28. Elliot MANYIKA [Minister of Youth Development, born 30 July 1955]

29. Kenneth MANYONDA [Deputy Minister for Industry and International Trade, born 10 Aug. 1934]

30. Reuben MARUMAHOKO [Deputy Minister for Energy and Power Development, born 4 Apr. 1948]

31. Angeline MASUKU [Politburo Secretary for Disabled and Disadvantaged Person's Welfare, born 14 Oct. 1936]

32. Sithokozile MATHUTHU [Deputy-Secretary for Transport and Social Welfare]

33. Amos Bernard Muvenga MIDZI [Minister for Energy and Development, born 4 July 1952]

34. Emmerson MNANGAGWA [Parliamentary Speaker, born 15 Sept. 1946]

35. Kembo MOHADI [Minister of Home Affairs, born 15 Nov. 1949]

36. Swithun MOMBESHORA [Minister of Higher Education, born 20 Aug. 1945]

37. Jonathan MOYO [Minister of Information, born 12 Jan. 1957]

38. July MOYO [Minister of Public Service, Labor and Social Welfare, born 7 May 1950]

39. Simon Khaya MOYO [Deputy-Secretary for Legal Affairs, born 1945]

40. Obert MPOFU [Deputy-Secretary for National Security, born 12 Oct. 1951]

41. Joseph MSIKA [Vice President, born 6 Dec. 1923]

42. Olivia MUCHENA [Minister of State for Science and Technology Development, born 18 Aug. 1946]

43. Opah MUCHINGURI [Politburo Secretary for Gender and Culture, born 14 Dec. 1958]

44. Stan MUDENGE [Minister of Foreign Affairs, born 17 Dec. 1948]

45. Grace MUGABE [born 23 July 1965]

46. Sabina MUGABE [Politburo Senior Committee Member, born 14 Oct. 1934]

47. Joyce MUJURU [Minister of Rural Resources and Water, born 15 Apr. 1955]

48. Solomon MUJURU [Politburo Senior Committee Member, born 1 May 1949]

49. Samuel MUMBENGEGWI [Minister of Industry and International Trade, born 20 July 1945]

50. Herbert MURERWA [Minister of Finance, born 31 July 1941]

51. Christopher MUSHOHWE [Deputy Minister, Transport and Communications, born 6 Feb. 1954]

52. Didymus MUTASA [Politburo Secretary for External Relations, born 27 July 1935]

53. Kenneth MUTIWEKUZIVA [Deputy Minister for Small and Medium Enterprise Development, born 27 May 1948]

54. Simon Vengesai MUZENDA [Vice President, born 28 Oct. 1922]

55. Tsitsi MUZENDA [Politburo Senior Committee Member, born 28 Aug. 1922]

56. Elisha MUZONZINI [Director of the Central Intelligence Organization, born 24 June 1957]

57. Abedinico NCUBE [Deputy Minister, Foreign Affairs, born 13 March 1954]

58. Naison NDLOVU [Politburo Secretary for Production and Labor, born 22 Oct. 1930]

59. Sikhanyiso NDLOVU [Deputy-Secretary for Commissariat, born 20 Sept. 1949]

60. Francis NHEMA [Minister of Environment and Tourism, born 17 Apr. 1959]

61. John NKOMO [Minister of State for Special Affairs, born 22 Aug. 1934]

62. Stephen NKOMO [Politburo Senior Committee Member, born 3 Oct. 1926]

63. Sithembiso NYONI [Minister of Small and Medium Enterprises Development, born 20 Sept. 1949]

64. David PARIRENYATWA [Minister of Health and Child Welfare, born 2 Aug. 1950]

65. Selina POTE [Deputy-Secretary for Gender and Culture]

66. Tinos RUSERE [Deputy Minister for Rural Resources and Water Development, born 10 May 1945]

67. Stanley SAKUPWANYA [Deputy-Secretary for Health and Child Welfare]

68. Sidney SEKERAMAYI [Minister of Defense, born 30 Mar. 1944]

69. Nathan SHAMUYARIRA [Politburo Secretary for Information and Publicity, born 29 Sept. 1928]

70. Perence SHIRI [Air Marshal (Air Force), born 11 Jan. 1955]

71. Isaiah SHUMBA [Deputy Minister, Education, Sports and Culture, born 3 Jan. 1949]

72. Absolom SIKOSANA [Politburo Secretary for Youth Affairs]

73. Solomon TAWENGWA [Deputy-Secretary for Finance, born 15 June 1940]

74. Josiah TUNGAMIRAI [Politburo Secretary for Empowerment and Indigenization, born 8 Oct. 1948]

75. Charles UTETE [Cabinet Secretary, born 30 Oct. 1938]

76. Paradzai ZIMONDI [Prisons chief, born 4 Mar. 1947]

77. Vitalis ZVINAVASHE [General, Commander of Zimbabwe Defense Forces, born 27 Sept. 1943]

Note: The bracketed identifying information with respect to each person listed in this Annex reflects information currently available and is provided solely to facilitate compliance with this order. Each individual listed in this Annex remains subject to the prohibitions of this order notwithstanding any change in title, position, or affiliation.

This may be interesting but it does not answer my question to Buchholz - in what way does Nalinee being blacklisted by the US contravene the Thai constitution?

He noted that if no clarification is received within 15 days, he will exercise his right to take legal action for criminal offenses against the four.

tick, tock

.

Given your widely recognised knowledge can you explain how the appointment of a person on a US blacklist is an infringement of the Thai Constitution? What has she done except incur the interest and condemnation of another country?

The other individual's a different question altogether since these are internal Thai matters